Faxon

I am getting tired of waiting for the price of a 5D MkIII to come down anytime before Christmas.I am shooting with a 20D and a 40D, and I could still be happy with a modest MP count.

I am seeing some great prices on EOS ID's on ebay and Amazon (thru private sellers). Seems like I could pick up a great 1D in any flavor and really enjoy using a pro camera.

I am soliciting advice from those of you who have used these older great cameras. If I wanted to spend about $1000, which is the one you would recommend? Any caveats? I see great cameras getting sold all the time on ebay, with many bidders. Somebody is thinking like me, I guess.

Right now, I am tempted to buy one today. I see some decent looking MkII's within my range. I want to learn and enjoy the features of the pro camera, and get comfortable with it. I also would like the 1.3 x factor, for use with my 17-40mm, and still get further with my 300mm.

There are several models to pick from, all at good prices. What would you recommend from the older 1D's?Would like to hear the pros and cons of a 1D and a 1Ds, for instance.

I am thinking all are great cameras, but I want to hear from you pros who have used them all.

What are your uses for the camera? The typical way to look at it is that the 1D is a press camera and the 1Ds is a studio camera. I consider the 1D a more versatile camera than the 1Ds and that's why I prefer to use the 1D.

I'm more of an advocate of the 1D Mark IIN than the 1D Mark II. The 1D Mark III looks like a nicer camera than both though, it's newer and that shows. Even in the small things, like the inclusion of live view and the joystick on the back.

For your uses you'd definitely find the 1D more useful than the 1Ds. The 1.3x crop factor is really handy! I barely notice it, it's not nearly as bad as the crop factor of APS-C cameras - I've never been able to use a 50mm prime lens on an APS-C camera because of the crop factor, but it's great on the 1.3x crop.Both the 1D and 1Ds would be fast focusing, they're mostly the same camera except for the sensor and a few little features.

There are probably other, more knowledgeable people who could offer better advice if they've used the products more. But from my perspective, that's the best advice I can offer.

If you're in large metro area like LA-Orange County as I am, you can find deals on Craigslist for the 1D Mark III at around $1000, good conditions with some cosmetic flaws. I'd bought one 1D3 recently for wildlife shooting, verdict: 10 fps great, IQ and AF good, but LCD display lousy.

I had a 1D MK II from May 2004 until May 2007 and a 1D MK III from June 2007 until November 2010. I carried the MK II to Mexico, Galapagos, and Italy, the MK III to Costa Rica and most of the USA. I now have three bodies, 1D MK IV, 5D MK II, and 5D MK III.Although I have had good luck with all of them, if I were to choose between the 1D models, I would really always go with the MK IV. That said, the 1D MK III, despite some early production problems, would be my choice over the 1D MK II. It was a bit faster in AF and the larger rear LCD screen was preferable to the earlier, smaller version. The battery life for the later model (MK III) was also quite noticeably better. Many of the accessories and the batteries for the MK III are interchangeable with the later MK IV which extends the usability somewhat.My usage is pretty much the same as your listed uses. I have transferred the landscape duties over to the 5D bodies but anything involving action seems to call for the 1D body in my opinion.Fred

The 1Ds3 is the best, the 5D2 second and the 5D classic is just a lovely camera.

I've owned all of them. Each has their limits compared to todays tech. But at least with the 1Ds3 it can focus and write to two cards.

+1

Why do you want to purchase really old tech? Compared to today's cameras, the IQ of the ones you mention aren't as good. They were very good back in their time, but there are better cameras today, for near the same price. The 1D3 and below are not great cameras anymore. The IQ is worse when compared to higher models after 2007.

I had 2 1D Mark II's from May 2004 until about 2 years ago. I travelled all over the world with them and they were great cameras. I have made 40x60 inch prints with them. Obviously there are many many difference compared to today's cameras, but the MAJOR difference is low light performance. You are limited to about 500 ISO before things start falling apart. It still would be a great camera in the camera room. That was the camera that got me to switch to Canon after 24 years shooting Nikon's.

I have a 1D mkII and it's my loan out camera - works great with the 100-400 when they need the reach. Purchasing a a mkII/mkIIN at this point wouldn't be a grand idea - spend a few hundred more and get the mkIII . Yes, the mkIV is much nicer, as is a 5d mk3, but remember, these 1D's double as blunt objects.

IQ wise, you're better with a more recent rebel, but when it comes to weather seals and build, there's a special place in my heart for the 1D.

Logged

"Me owning a lens shop is kind of like having an alcoholic bar tender." - Roger Cicala